Defamation

• Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a

person.
• Under English law:
• Defamation is of two types Libel and Slander.
• Slander means the publication of a
defamatory statement in a transient form.
• Libel is representation made in some
permanent form.
In cinema film, not only the photographic part of
it considered to be libel but also speech which
synchronizes with it is also a libel.

Section 1 of the defamation Act of 1952, the

broadcasting of words by means of wireless
telegraphy shall be treated as publication in
permanent form.
• Under English law distinction is made between
libel and slander:
(a) Under criminal law only libel has been
recognised as an offence and not slander.
(b) Under law of torts, libel is actionable where
as slander is only actionable in exceptional
cases, only on proof of a special damage.
• The four exceptional cases under which slander
is actionable are:
1. Imputation of criminal offence to the plaintiff.
2. Imputation of a contagious infection or an
infectious disease, prevented other from
associating with plaintiff.
3. Imputation that person is incompetent,
dishonest, or unfit in regard to the office,
profession, trade or business carried by him.
4. Imputation of adultery to a woman or a girl.
(created by the slander of woman act, 1891).
Indian Law:
Under english criminal law a distinction is made
between libel and slander. Libel is a crime and
slander is only a civil wrong, where as in Indian
criminal law both libel and slander are offence
under Section 499 of IPC.
• In India there has been a controversy whether
slander like libel is actionable or special
damage is required to be proved as in
England.
• Parvathi v. mannar I.L.R (1885) 8 Mad. 175.
• Hirabai Jehangir v. Dinshaw Edulji and A.C
Narayan Sah v. Kannamma Bai I.L.R (1932) 55
mad. 727.
• Mst. Ramdhara v. Mst. Phulwatibai, 1969 Jab.
L.J. 582.
• D.P Choudhary v. Manjulata AIR 1997 Raj. 170.
 Essentials of a defamation
1. The statement must be defamatory.
2. The said statement must refer to plaintiff. The
statement must be understood by right-
thinking or reasonable-minded persons, as
referring to the plaintiff.
3. The statement must be published. It means
must be communicated to some person
other than a plaintiff himself.
4. In case of slander, either there must be proof
of special damage or the slander must come
with in the serious classes of cases in which it is
actionable per se.
 Statement must be defamatory:
• G. Sreedharamurthy v. Bellary Muncipal
Council AIR 1982 Kant. 287.
• Deepak Kumar Biswas v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd. AIR 2006 Gau. 110.
• S.N.M Abdi v. Prafulla kumar Mohanta AIR
2002 Gau. 75.
• Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy AIR
2006 Del. 300.
• South Indian railway Co. v. Ramakrishna J.L.R
(1890) 13 Mad. 34.
The Innuendo:
• Mr. Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers ltd. (1929)
2 K.B 331.
Intention to defame is not necessary:
• B.M. Thimmaiah v. T. M Rukimini AIR 2013 Kar. 81.
• Morrison v. Ritihie & Co. (1902) 4 F654.
The statement must refer to the plaintiff

• Hulton Co. v. Jones (1910) A.C 20.

• Newstead v. London Express Newspapers Ltd.
(1939) 4 All E.R. 391.

These judgments were criticised in England

Parliament and result of it Defamation Act, 1952
was passed.
• T.V Ramasubha Iyer v. A.M.A Mohindeen AIR
1972 Mad. 398.
• Harash Mendiratta v. Maharaj Singh 2002 Cr.
L.J 1894.
• John Thomas v. dr. K Jagadeesan AIR 2001 S.C
2651.
• Defamation of a class:
• Knuffer v. london Express Newspapers Ltd.
(1944) 1 All E. R 495.
• Dhirendra Nath Sen v. Rajat Kanti Bhadra AIR
1970 Cal. 216.
• Defamation of the deceased not a tort but
criminalised under sec. 499 of IPC.
 The Defamatory Statement Must be
Published
• Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad AIR 1958 Pat.
445.
• Arumuga Mudaliar v Annamaliar (1996) 2 M.L.J
223.
• Theaker v. Richardson (1962) 1 All E.R. 229.
• Repetition of the defamatory matter.
• Indemnity from the supplier of wrong information.
• Gurbachan Singh v. Babu Ram AIR 1969 Punjab
201.
 Defences CO2

• The defences to the action of defamation are:

1. Justification or Truth.
2. Fair comment.
3. Privilege which may be absolute or qualified.
 1. Justification or Truth
• Complete defence under tort but no defence
under Sec. 499 of the IPC.
• Alexander v. North Easter Railway (1885) 6 B & S
340.
• Radheshyam Tiwari v. Eknath AIR 1985 Bom. 285.
• A slight deviation from truth is acceptable but if
true and untrue facts are mixed in such a way
difficult to be segregated by public is not a
defence.
 2. Fair Comment
• Making fair comment on matters of public
interest is a defence, the following essentials
are required:
(i) It must be a comment i.e. an expression of
opinion rather than assertion of fact.
(ii) The comment must be fair.:
• The comment cannot be fair if it is based on
untrue facts.
• Comment is fair or not depends upon whether the
defendant honestly held that particular opinion.
• K.S Sundram v. S. Viswanathan AIR 2013 (NOC) 216
Mad.
• Gregory v. Duke of Brunswick (1843) 6 M&G 205.
(iii) The matter commented upon must be of
public interest- administration of governments,
public companies, courts, conduct of ministers,
officers of the State, public institutions and local
authorities, public meetings, public
entertainments etc.
 3. Privilege CO2

• Privilege are the occasions where the

right of free speech outweighs the
plaintiff’s right to reputation. It is of two
types:
(a)Absolute privilege and
(b)Qualified privilege.
 Absolute Privilege
(i) Art. 105 of Indian Constitution-
(a) Statements made by a member of either
house of Parliament and
(b) Publication of the reports or proceedings
under the authority of either house of
parliament, cannot be questioned in a court of
law. Similar privilege is given to State
Legislature under Art. 194(2) of the
Constitution of India.
(ii) Judicial proceedings:
(i) Protection to the judicial officers in India has
been granted by the Judicial Officers Protection
Act, 1850. the counsel has been also granted
absolute privilege at the time of his pleading.
• The words spoken by counsel are irrelevant not
having any relevance to the matter before the
court , such a defence cannot be pleaded.
• Jiwan Mal v. Lachman Das AIR 1929 Lah. 486.
• V. Narayana v. E. Subbanna AIR 1975 Karn.
162.
(iii) State communications: an statement made
by one officer of the state to another in the
course of official duty is absolutely privileged for
reasons of public policy.
 Qualified Privileges CO2

• To avail the defence of qualified privileges the

following two conditions must be fulfiled:
(a) statement must be made during privileged
occasion i.e. in discharge of a duty or
protection of an interest.
(b) Statement was made without malice.